Central Information Commission, New Delhi

File No.CIC/WB/A/2010/000758-SM
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Date of hearing
Date of decision
:
:
3 June 2011
3 June 2011
Name of the Appellant : Shri Vihar Durve
573/1, Pavan Vihar,
Near Sai Pump, J M Road,
Pune 411 004.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Rajya Sabha Secretariat,
Parliament House Annexe,
New Delhi 110 001.
The Appellant was present along with Shri Venkatesh Nayak.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:-
(i) Shri A.K. Singh, Director & CPIO,
(ii) Shri Shashi Bhushan, Joint Director
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. Both the parties were present during the hearing and made their
submissions.
3. The Appellant had sought a number of information in respect of the
consideration by a Parliamentary Standing Committee about the
implementation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Unfortunately, the
Appellant had referred to the said committee under a wrong nomenclature.
Although the CPIO had provided a number of information, he had not given any
CIC/WB/A/2010/000758-SM
details about the recommendations of the said Committee. Later, the Appellate
Authority took the view that since the findings of the Committee had not been
placed before Parliament, disclosure of the desired information could amount to
the breach of privilege of Parliament and was, therefore, exempt from
disclosure in terms of Section 8 (1) (c) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
4. During the hearing, the Respondents reiterated the same argument. The
Appellant, however, submitted that this matter had come before the Committee
way back in 2008-2009, that is, nearly 3 years back and if the authorities chose
not to place the recommendations of the Committee before the House
concerned, the information could not be denied indefinitely to the citizens.
There is a lot of merit in this argument. When any Committee set up by any
public authority is assigned a task, the findings of that Committee are supposed
to be acted upon within a timeframe. It cannot be anybody's argument that just
because the authorities decide not to act on the findings of the committee, it
could be held back from the citizens by invoking one or the other provisions of
the Right to Information (RTI) Act for an indefinite period. No one has argued
that the desired information is exempted under any other provisions of the Right
to Information (RTI) Act; the only argument which has been offered is that the
disclosure of this would amount to the breach of privilege of Parliament.
5. Parliament of India is the highest lawmaking body. It has to be a model
in implementing the laws it makes. The information which the Appellant has
sought is in the possession of the public authority. Just because the competent
authority has not decided to place it before Parliament even after a lapse of
about three years, it cannot indefinitely hold it back from the citizens. We,
therefore, direct the CPIO to disclose the findings of this Committee within 10
CIC/WB/A/2010/000758-SM
working days from the receipt of this order.
6. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this
Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Deputy Registrar
CIC/WB/A/2010/000758-SM